Robert A. Slovak v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A

Opinion

* * *

ROBERT A. SLOVAK, Case No. 3:13-cv-00569-MMD-CLB

Plaintiff, ORDER v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 501 (“R&R”)), recommending the Court deny Tory M. Pankopf Ltd.’s (“Pankopf”)1 motion to enforce attorney’s lien (ECF No. 497 (“Motion”)).2 Pankopf filed an objection.3 (ECF No. 501 (“Objection”).) For the reasons discussed herein, the Court overrules the Objection, adopts the R&R, and denies the Motion. Pankopf’s Motion asks the Court to enter judgment, under NRS § 18.015, in Pankopf’s favor “quantifying the [attorney’s] lien in Mr. Slovak’s Property and his file in the amount” of the outstanding legal fees. (ECF No. 497 at 5.) Judge Baldwin recommends denying the Motion, finding that the supporting records show Pankopf 1Plaintiff retained Tory Pankopf to represent him in this action in January 2018 through April 2025. (ECF No. 497 2-3.) Pankopf asserts Plaintiff’s outstanding legal bill amounts to $150,509.61. (Id. at 5.) 2The Court adopts Judge Baldwin’s recitation of the relevant background facts and procedural history and will not repeat the underlying facts in this order. (ECF No. 501 at 1-2.) 3In light of Pankopf’s Objection, the Court reviews the R&R de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those deem the lien discharged.4 (ECF No. 501 at 4.) In his Objection, Pankopf argues Judge Baldwin erred in finding that the lien was discharged because payments exceeding the amount stated in the lien were made if additional fees were incurred. (ECF No. 502 at 3.) Judge Baldwin relies on Nevada case law for the proposition that “A valid tender of payment operates to discharge a lien.” (ECF No. 497 at 3 (citing Renfroe v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, 456 P.3d 1055 (Nev. 2020)) (quoting Bank of America, N.A. v. SFR Invs. Pool 1, LLC, 427 P.3d 113, 117 (Nev. 2018)).) Pankopf argues these cases are distinguishable because they relate to discharge of a super majority lien under NRS § 116.3116. (ECF No. 502 at 4.) The Court is unpersuaded because the point is what operates to discharge a lien—here, evidence of payments of fees incurred. Pankopf further argues that Judge Baldwin did not consider that the lien here was also a retaining lien. (Id. at 2-3.) Pankopf cites to Fredianelli v. Price, 402 P.3d 1254 (Nev. 2017) as support for its argument that the Court should adjudicate its retaining lien over the Property. (Id.) In that case, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s enforcement of a retaining lien over the client’s “papers and files left” in the attorney’s possession under NRS § 18.015(1)(b). Fredianelli, 402 P.3d at 1257. NRS § 18.015(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part, for a lien “upon any file or other property properly left in the possession of the attorney by a client.” But Pankopf does not contend that he has possession over Plaintiff’s Property or that Plaintiff left his Property in Pankopf’s possession for the Court to adjudicate the lien.5 In sum, the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin and will adopt the R&R.

4The Notice of Attorney’s Fee Lien was executed on December 24, 2020 and asserted unpaid fees and costs in the amount of $21,858.47. (ECF No. 497-2.) Judge Baldwin correctly noted that the records provided show Pankopf received payments totaling $246,114.29 after December 24, 2020. (ECF No. 501 at 4.) 5Pankopf’s Motion does assert that it has claimed a retaining lien in Plaintiff’ file, including the note and deed of trust. (ECF No. 497 at 3.) However, the Motion primarily seeks to enforce the lien against the real property located at 928 Northwood Blvd. in Incline Village, Nevada. (Id.) 1 It is therefore ordered that Pankopf's Objection (ECF No. 502) is overruled. It is further ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 501) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Pankopf’s motion to enforce attorney's lien (ECF No. 497) is denied. DATED THIS 23 Day of September 2025.

□□ MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE